After all, Americans are being asked to invest trillions of dollars in the charging infrastructure and green grid that BEVs require.
Are we making a good investment?
This chart, from the referenced article, compares three vehicles representing three energy strategies for the automotive industry.
The first vehicle is the Volkswagen ID4, representing Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs).
The second vehicle is the Toyota Prime, representing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs),
and the third is the Toyota RAV4, representing hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs).
The article then said, “If you look at these stats from a technology-neutral perspective, the RAV4 is the clear winner:
The small text is included because it describes the conditions under which the data was obtained for each type of vehicle.
Focusing on the dark and light orange areas, we can compare the CO2 emissions from fuel cycles, while excluding the CO2 emissions from the production of Lithium-ion batteries.
Dark Orange reflects CO2 emissions from the well to tank, fuel cycle.
Light Orange reflects CO2 emissions form the tank to wheel, fuel cycle.
This graphic shows that the HEV and BEV-80 both emit approximately the same total amount of CO2.
Note that the CO2 from the fuel used by the BEV-80, i.e., electricity, was derived mostly from fossil fuels.
BEVs must use electricity that is100% green, before BEVs emit less CO2 than HEVs.
And 100% green electricity comes at a huge cost.
The cost to the United States will be around $7.5 trillion.
But this investment must be repeated every 20 years, based on the life of wind turbines and PV solar panels.
This is equivalent to paying one-third of the United States current national debt every 20 years to eliminate fossil fuels.
For cost details, see Special Report, Green Nightmare for America
https://bit.ly/33ekRH7
Another report, by the Jefferies Financial Group, “Are EVs as ‘Green’ as They Appear?”, concluded:
“BEVs had to be driven 124,000 miles before their ‘whole of life’ CO2 emissions equaled that from an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle.”
The Jefferies report found that CO2 emissions from building Lithium-ion batteries, using fossil fuels for mining, etc., were greater than was assumed by the EnergyPostEU article.
The EnergyPostEU article estimates of CO2 emissions may have assumed using green energy rather than fossil fuels for the mining and manufacture of Lithium-ion batteries.
What can we conclude from these two reports?
The Jefferies analysis established there were few reductions in CO2 emissions when using BEVs instead of ICE light vehicles.
The EnergyPostEU article showed that HEVs were the better investment, when BEVs used electricity from the existing grid.
While these two studies arrive at slightly different conclusions, it’s clear that ICE light vehicles, which suit the everyday needs of families, are the better choice for America.
If CO2 is not an existential threat, as many scientists now agree, HEVs, and ICEs in general, are the best strategy for America.
There is another factor to consider when evaluating whether BEVs or ICE vehicles are the best strategy for the United States:
With ICE vehicles, using fossil fuels, the United States is energy independent.
With BEVs, the United States is dependent on other countries for materials used to make the batteries, especially China."
